IAmJoshBrown.com
An Emerging Profession: Top Down Hierarchies & Flat Worlds
Drew Ditzel of Hawks, Dawgs, and Jesus is writing his final paper for a class at Columbia Theological Seminary for a class on Emerging Church Models. Part of the stipulations of the paper is that he’s supposed to consult 5 or more bloggers (this is my kind of class). He’s asked me as well as a few other more well known bloggers to contribute to a topic related to pastors/clergy and their relationship towards their congregations.
The other bloggers are Adam Walker Cleaveland (www.pomomusings.com), Anthony Smith (www.postmodernegro.com), Carol Merritt (www.tribalchurch.org), Wess Daniels (www.gatheringinlight.com), Julie Clawson (www.julieclawson.com) and Jonny Baker (www.jonnybaker.blogs.com). I will be blogging along with them today on the same topic.
I’ve chosen to think about the changing dynamic between pastors/clergy and their congregations in relationship to organizational structures built off of hierarchies. My premise is that most pastors/clergy operate and relate from their position on the hierarchy (which is conveniently located at the top rung). They exist at the top and assume that their role is to disseminate power downward towards everyone below them (other staff, volunteers, congregants, community).
Despite good intentions, hierarchies are created for one purpose, to funnel power to the top, effectively creating a bottleneck. In hierarchical models, this distribution of power (i.e. influence, information, communication, control) is puncticular and linear. Meaning that it moves from Point A to Point B and then to Point C and on down the line. The flow of energy is always moving from or going towards the top.
Another workable analogy might be that of a family tree. The pastor sits at the top as the parent. In a traditional understanding of family, a parent can have more than one child, but a child can only have one parent. Thus the parent is always over the child. And the child always under the parent. A family tree is a hierarchical tree.
For the most part, pastors have always run their churches based off these hierarchical models.
Take a look at the rather crude model below. The figure on the left illustrates the way most pastors/congregrations function. Information flows from one level to the next. But always going through the top, always going through the pastor/clergy. This is an illustration of the hierarchical model. Take away the pastor/clergy and the organization collapses in on itself.
However, the model on the right is one that others have suggested might have more potential in our current cultural context. It is a model based off of web-like, networked, indigenous organisms. There is no “top”. There is no “bottom”. There is no “head”. Rather all areas are actively in flux and intermingling with one another.
Ori Brafman and Rob Beckstrom articulated this cultural shift in their seminal work The Starfish and the Spider. They described how most organizations function like spiders. If you cut off the leg of the spider, it’s crippled and will forever be without a leg. If you cut off the head of a spider, it will die. For organizations built on the framework of hierarchy, if you cut off the head, the entire organization withers and wilts.
In comparison to a starfish, you can cut off the arms . . . chop it into a million pieces . . . and it will still regenerate itself and grow again. They further describe this theory of leadership by discussing how the human brain works in relationship to memories.
Let’s say for example, we wanted to erase a certain memory from someone’s brain. Under the hierarchial model, we’d locate the specific neuron and zap it, and the memory would be gone. But in Lettvin’s model (flattened/web-like/network), the memory would be much more difficult to eliminate. We’d have to zap a pattern of neurons - a much more difficult proposition.
The analogy should be clear.
This is why organizations with a plurality of leaders, authority, and voices are the most innovative, creative, and revolutionary. Shawn Fanning, the creator of Napster (essentially the tipping point for peer-to-peer technology), for all intents and purposes, began the process of bringing down the top-down music industry. Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda attack and allude the most sophisticated military nation in history from a cave with little to no money. Craig Newark created Craigslist and overnight the top-down print news lost one of their biggest sources of income and audience by undercutting the “classifieds”.
This is why Thomas Friedman coined the term “flattened world”. It’s as if someone stomped on and squashed the traditional hierarchical model. The result is now a flattened world, a world without clear boundaries, hierarchies of power, and linear communication/influence.
Leadership no longer comes from the top and from one source. Rather leadership comes from the margins and from a plurality of sources.
Looking at our model again . . . we can see that the emerging model on the right has the highest potential for collaboration, co-participation, checks and balances and locality to name but a few.
This is not to say that the model on the left wasn’t effective. It worked for a time. It was a great vessel for organization and communication in a time and world that trusted authority, a world where the line between leader and audience was much more concrete and distinct. But as those lines have blurred, as more and more people are being empowered to participate and create alongside of, we are in desperate need of an organizational model that is able to embrace and reflect this change in culture.
And if there is any organization that should be adept at and equipped at making the change it should be the church. The church has a great legacy of decentralized organization. Afterall, the Jesus movement spread like wild fire (virally) as this type of flattened, web-like, network of family and friends moved out and multiplied (as a side note, multiplication is the byproduct of flattened models while addition is the byproduct of hierarchies). I mean can you imagine Jesus as a CEO or a traditional pastor/clergy? The king of the castle, the head honcho? If this was the model that Jesus wanted us to imitate, he would have become a priest and never left the synagogue.
Instead, he knew that any great revolution of love (as opposed to a revolution of force) was dependent on movement from the margins. And consequently empowering those he found at the margins.
This is where true leadership happens. This is what most organizations are already beginning to reflect in their leadership structures. The question is whether or not pastors/clergy will embrace something that their congregants already know to be true.
Discussion
18 comments for “An Emerging Profession: Top Down Hierarchies & Flat Worlds”
Post a comment
Lending Cluster
Collected Thoughts
Resources
Most Popular Posts
- Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: A White Man's World (107 Comments)
- Frank Viola: I Was Wrong (71 Comments)
- Ken Silva Is A Great Watch Dog (55 Comments)
- Over Indulgence: My Confession (53 Comments)
- On Homosexuality (52 Comments)
- Huckabee Is An Idiot (49 Comments)
- Direct TV, Evil Empires, & Something Worse Than Wal-Mart (48 Comments)
- Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: Introduction (48 Comments)
- The Consumptive Church: Opium and 3 Legged Chairs (48 Comments)
- Move Over Barack, Dennis Kucinich Is Bringing It (45 Comments)
[...] for a class on “Emerging Church Models.” Five different bloggers are participating: Josh Brown, Julie Clawson, Adam Walker Cleaveland, Wess Daniels, Anthony Smith, and me. You can read his [...]
hi josh. its a pity the question begins with pastor/congregation divide - that drives us to the more traditional ec models that have clergy.
it might have been worthwhile for the question to be pursued with those emerging churches that run without a pastor but utilize 5-fold giftings in emergent fashion.
[...] emerging, etc. I think it will be a good conversation. The other bloggers involved are Jonny Baker, Josh Brown, Anthony Smith, Wess Daniels, Julie Clawson and Carol Howard Merritt. Read Drew’s intro post [...]
the great tallskinny is back blogging and back commenting. always a good thing.
i agree. for those already exploring these models, i think it’s rather self evident. but i do believe that the majority of leadership structures are still fashioned with this divide. so in that way i think for drew’s professor is probably looking for more of a framework comparing and contrasting the two.
You know, one of the biggest doctrines out of the Reformation was the priesthood of all believers. The Roman church had held priests as super-spiritual, and that enabled them to lord it over their people. That’s what will almost inevitably happen when you have one person running the show.
Protestants as a whole have digressed back to the idea that the pastor is somehow more super-spiritual, and capitalism has invaded the church, and as a result, we have gone back to some malformed Catholic model of church.
One reason I’m still a Baptist is because technically (important word) Baptists believe that the pastor is one who exercises his spiritual gifts alongside every other member of the church, and that every member, leaders included, are on the same plane.
Of course, laziness, arrogant pastors, and the fear that [somewhat understandably] comes from having everyone on a level playing field has caused even the most dedicated of “congregationalists” to shy away from the model of Christ as head of the church, and all members being equals.
So, the model on the right is nothing new, but something finally being recovered, thanks to the emerging church (and a few traditional churches). The model on the right is more respectful of people, and takes some of the load off leaders in the church so they can deal with things in a more appropriate manner. A plurality of leaders who are no more “spiritual” or special than the rest of the members of a church provides much needed checks and balances that will help prevent the massive moral failures so many pastors see, too.
good thoughts. and a very insightful connection on the priesthood of all believers. while i hated that phrase as a baptist (cause i heard it 5 times a day) i think it does provide a workable foundation to build off of.
my only pushback against it is that i’d say that it goes beyond just believers and encompasses even the local/global community.
technically (again important word) if everything is working right, then all 5 aspects: god, pastor, staff, congregants, community . . . are all in a mutual and dynamic relationship. benefiting each other and bleeding their influence into each other.
Josh,
Thanks for your reflections. Maybe it’s because I’m Presbyterian and there’s more of a representational democracy, but I don’t relate to the top-down model. For me, being a pastor has never been a matter of everyone following the leader.
Perhaps it is in some churches, but most of the pastors that I work with lose all the time….
Thanks for the post. I’m currently in one of the top down churches, though personally am an emerging model minister, so I’m struggling a bit.
The main problem: folks are perfectly happy with the old model. In this context they are old, the old model lets them sit back and not engage their faith, and the church thinks it is thriving from a numbers perspective.
So, how to change a starfish when it likes being a starfish as the emerging world passes it by?
http://adamcopeland.wordpress.com
carol.
thanks for the feedback. you’re right. i was probably a bit biased in my thoughts since the tradition i was apart of was baptist. i should have probably given a better disclaimer about the perspective i was coming from. i’m sure that being on the east coast, things are probably a bit different as well. down here in the dirty south, the top-down model is still very much in effect. even among some of my non-baptist friends.
adam.
thanks for stopping by. i think i agree with you. for the most part, people who have always been a part of the church, have no problem with the current model. i think it reinforces what they already believe. and you’re right . . . it pretty much gives them a pass on being active participants in the process. however, i know for a lot of my friends and people who have little to no church background, being a part of a top-down model is a very foreign concept. it makes no sense that they wouldn’t be allowed or “freed up” to participate, contribute, and create alongside the “pastor”.
(carol and adam) as pastors, what relationship do you see between the “traditional” understand of pastor and the “emerging one”. what are things you’re adjusting to? a better question might be, is how has your job description changed as you navigate the different context?
Josh, I love this differentiation between top down and flat world leadership and i think i can envision churches realistically emerging out of a top down structure to some version of a starfish. My questions i guess is if you enter a community where a few members have grown so attached to /dependent upon a top down method that they are lost and fearful about the changes, how do you shepherd them into understanding the methodology behind the transition? how do you leave the 99 that are on board with the starfish to go find that one spider?
love the flattened world stuff - big fan of spider and starfish. the catalyst model vs ceo model in there sums up the challenge for me.
Great post Josh! I also appreciate you bringing the Starfish and Spider work, it’s a must read for anyone in a leadership position.
[...] behind it click here. Other bloggers participating include Adam walker Cleaveland, Anthony Smith, Josh Brown, Carol Howard Merritt, Wess Daniel, and Jonny [...]
[...] of some general comparisons between starfish and spider models, as they give better backdrop for my thoughts. The starfish column is on the left and the spider on the right. CEO | catalyst boss | peer command [...]
Josh asked: as pastors, what relationship do you see between the “traditional” understand of pastor and the “emerging one”. what are things you’re adjusting to? a better question might be, is how has your job description changed as you navigate the different context?
I’m in a pretty traditional setting in a lot of ways. But, on staff we’re both called “pastors” (vs. Pastor and Associate). John’s in charge. He’s been there for 22 years, and has the trust and relationships that come with that sort of tenure.
Another way leadership is flat at Western: when I got there, I wasn’t handed a job description. We decided to wait a year, see where my skills/gifts were in that context, and then put something together. That’s how everyone on staff works–we’re all motivated self starters.
We have a young, smart, social-justice oriented congregation. They’re also self ambitious and most of our mission work gets done without pastoral oversight.
As far as transition, my style is much different–my preaching and leadership definitely comes from a postmodern context. But I haven’t been able to navigate much change in my churches (I was a solo pastor before). I often wonder if emerging church models work best with church plants.
I actually wrote Tribal Church (the book) in the hope that traditional churches wouldn’t give up on reaching out to a new generation. Also, I hoped that young mainline pastors might be encouraged in that context.
Gheez…if this comment goes on much longer, it’s going to be a book….
One last thing, I definitely understand the top-down Baptist model. I’m a Moody grad.
Josh asked: as pastors, what relationship do you see between the “traditional” understand of pastor and the “emerging one”. what are things you’re adjusting to? a better question might be, is how has your job description changed as you navigate the different context?
In my context–a vital but old school Church of Scotland congregation–the congregation views my job description very much the same as an assistant minister 50 years ago. In practice, however, I’m trying to broaden the conversation from the pulpit, use different forms of teaching and learning, and network, network, network.
I’m struggling, however, to find clear ways to communicate this emerging role in such a traditional context. I plan to start the conversation with my supervisory committee, and go from there.
[...] theological discussion are: C. Wess Daniels (Los Angeles, CA); Anthony Smith (Charlotte, NC); Josh Brown (Atlanta, Georgia); Adam Walker Cleaveland (Princeton, NJ); Carol Howard Merritt (Washington, [...]
[...] Read Josh Brown’s, An Emerging Profession: Top Down Hierarchies & Flat Worlds [...]